djpretzel

Happy birthday, sir.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

Not the links, just the mix IDs... next and prev links are in fact dynamic, but in this case since I butterfingered the ID itself (which could have been an autoincrement but is instead manual - conscious decision on my part), the link got fudged too.

No one else picked up on it and it was entered wrong in the database by yours truly; thanks for letting us know, should work correctly now.

Appropriate vB setting has been modified; should be good.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

I didn't actually listen to it... yet... but please finish it because: Title rawks Need a Pscyhonauts mix Title rawks Need a Pscyhonauts mix

Correct. Also, we've had a couple lawyers and those with music law experience in particular look it over, but if you've got specific concerns even in light of the above clarification, we definitely wanna know.

Please refer to my initial post, which I have updated. While discussing the policy ad infinitum might have continued to yield beneficial feedback, at some point we need to move on with a living, breathing document. We've decided to enact the policy in its present form, which represents feedback from mixers and listeners, lawyers and laymen (and women), and which I think is a step in the right direction. It may need further revision. We may find that it leaves certain territory too vague, or is too restrictive elsewhere. It's difficult to get something 100% right the first time, and by enacting the policy in its present form we're not claiming we have, we just feel we've reached a comfort level with many and are ready to take things to the next level. Without implying any cessation of feedback, I'd still like to thank those of you who offered your thoughts. Given that this is the type of thing that often gets people up in arms and makes even the most rational among us very passionate, sometimes irrationally so, I think we did a pretty fantastic job of taking an initial draft that admittedly had some gaping holes and coming up with something that better realizes the original intent.

I'm locking this thread as continued discussion can take place on the official announcement thread or draft thread.

OverClocked ReMix Enacts Content Policy Contact: David W. Lloyd, dlloyd@ocremix.org For Immediate Release June 12, 2007 FAIRFAX, Va.–-OverClocked ReMix (http://www.ocremix.org) today enacted a content policy, formalizing a licensing agreement between submitting artists and the site and also explaining terms of use for those utilizing ReMixes elsewhere. This policy was the result of over three weeks of continuous discussion between site staff and members of the community, during which two iterative drafts were produced via a substantial review process. This policy is publicly available at http://www.ocremix.org/info/Content_Policy. All future submissions will fall under the effect of this policy. Existing artists will be contacted shortly regarding previously submitted ReMixes. Though some expressed concern specifically regarding the policy's handling of ReMix removals, numerous compromises were reached that limit the site's ability to remove mixes at will or restrict in any way an artist's ownership and right to distribute their music separately from OverClocked ReMix. Site staff involved believe that the policy will aid in pursuing new distribution channels and promoting the site and the many distinct artists that contribute to it and constitute its heart and soul. Clarity in what can and cannot be done with mixes extends not only to the relationship between the site and its contributors, but also to those looking to publicly perform, redistribute, or incorporate into other works music made available through OverClocked ReMix. Historically, many questions surrounding terms of use have arisen, and this policy marks the first time anything has been spelled out that directly addresses such questions. While site staff involved acknowledge that enacting a formal content policy runs the risk of taking the "fun" out of this non-profit, fan-fueled community, they nevertheless feel that the ambiguity and uncertainty involved in not having a policy could be equally as detrimental, and that clearly stating a submission agreement and terms of use will help move the site forward. Previous community discussion regarding the policy can currently be found at http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9628 and http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9730.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

Thanks; I like your wording better, and have also fixed the spelling error.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

Well, note the bold term: Performance isn't really redistribution; we're concerned about modification of the files themselves if the files are being moved around, but playing them out loud is less distribution and more... playing them out loud. So the modification clause is moot, since it's not redistribution.

The third draft has been completed and is available for review at http://www.ocremix.org/info/Content_Policy Major changes include the following: General rewording with assistance from Prophecy Additional ownership clause:"By submitting material, YOU indicate that YOU are the sole owner(s) of the material and contributor(s) to the arrangement of said material in the form of a derivative work, as defined by the current Submission Standards and Instructions and subject to review." [*]Modification to OCR removal clause: "OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to remove submitted materials at any time due to violations of the current Submission Standards and Instructions or requests by third party copyright holders."... meaning we can't just remove your mixes because we think you smell or you hurt our feelings... [*]Modification/addition to license termination clause: "Generally, OverClocked ReMix will not agree to most removal requests, and will evaluate such requests with regards to the best interests of the community."... clearly spelling out with far less ambiguity what's been discussed... [*]Modification to terms of use: "In the case of public or semi-public performances where accreditation is not reasonable, responding to audience inquiries with this information will suffice."... meaning that Taucer's gym classes or other situations where citing every last artist/mix would be ridiculous are cool, so long as people are directed to ocremix.org if they take the initiative and ask... There's more equality now... while we might refuse removal requests, we ourselves can't just remove any mix because we feel like it. Furthermore, there's a declaration of intent regarding license termination that makes it clear that removal is unlikely, so we're not trying to pull a fast one. Finally, Taucer's concern about accreditation for semi-public performances has been addressed. Site projects will be covered by this policy. The policy itself does not need to explicitly refer to such projects; rather, the project guidelines will be modified to indicate the necessity of this agreement upon project completion. The "grandfathering" of previous mixes does not need to be spelled out in this policy. If no one explicitly agrees to a policy, it clearly can't be enacted retroactively without consent. We plan on seeking out such consent for all existing mixes. ReMixes of those who decline or are unreachable will not be removed, but will also not be included in certain distribution/promotional channels. I'm still very up for discussing and potentially revising this policy, but after due consideration with input from many, I continue to believe that the license termination policy should remain intact and essentially unaltered. All removal reasons to date have not swayed me on this point, and all alternatives suggested have been impractical, infeasible, very limiting, highly undesirable, or some combination thereof. Therefore, please focus on aspects of the policy not related to license termination.

At this point in time, it appears to be an unfortunate decision, perhaps not entirely intentional, on the part of whomever was putting together the album for Tommy. My understanding is that little to no paperwork/signing went on when Dan and others contributed their efforts for the EWJ album and this album as well. I find it confusing that some arrangers would be directly credited and others not, and am disappointed not to see Dan's name in the spotlights, where it belongs given the amount of effort & time he poured into the track, but I'm not prepared to make assumptions about intentions. Mazedude, Mustin, Dan, and other relevant individuals are aware of this issue and looking into it. Until we hear otherwise, directly from them or from Tommy himself, it makes sense to chill. As a sidenote, this underscores the importance of a policy like the one we've been working on, to clarify exactly who can do what with what, etc.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

I find it quite perplexing that you somehow think you're in a better position to estimate the amount of work involved on my end than I am. The gap between a mix being posted and a physical release of some sort is going to be indeterminate. Under your proposed policy, some people might have months to make up their mind, others days, which is ridiculous. No one's chimed in yet, but I don't think the compromise you're suggesting would truly please anyone or change most minds, given the potential implications. The logistics involve so many contingencies that I don't even know how you'd word it, and I can't think of any EULA or site policy I've ever seen that works that way. When a compromise pleases no one fully, it's probably a decent and equitable notion... when it pleases no one at all, however (besides, I'm assuming, yourself), I'd say it's rather not.

Compyfox has been banned for continued disruptive behavior. Regarding proposals to intermittently do some sort of Spring cleaning, have periodic lockdowns, etc., during which mixers could opt to have specific songs removed or not, I'm sorry, but this simply doesn't make sense to me. It really doesn't offer people looking for complete freedom to remove their mixes whenever they want what they appear to be seeking. It means we'd have to poll every last mixer that submitted a piece in the interim period between one lockdown and the next. Essentially, once physically published, the existing removal policy would hold true. Since we intend to publish on last.fm and elsewhere, NOT JUST physical media, on a continuous basis, the number of "removal windows" is unforeseeable and potentially quite large, with concurrent, tangential timelines for different avenues. This is one of those proposals that I imagine sounds reasonable to those proposing it as a compromise, but... think through the logistics. Please.

Which "we" are you referring to? Please speak in first person unless you are being VERY specific about whomever you are supposedly representing the collective viewpoint of. Also, don't use double quotes unless you're specifically quoting something I've said. I never said anything about a "hypothetical thesis"... and if I had, I would've used the word "hypothesis"... You may think this, but I don't. This is no longer up for discussion, in case you haven't gathered that - I clearly, definitively, and without ANY room for compromise feel that there need to be good reasons for mix removal, that it can't just be on a whim. Period. End of discussion on that issue, Roland. Got it? I hate to be so blunt, but you don't seem to be understanding things too well... we're still very interested in discussing the policy, but your miscommunication and inability to understand what's up for discussion and what isn't is hurting rather than helping at this point. With the exception of LuiZa, everyone else who has chimed in expressing concerns with the policy has been very helpful in my understanding those concerns and trying to some extent to address them, but you've been retreading the same territory, misquoting me, and misunderstanding things, and continue to do so. Half this thread consists of Dhsu and others trying to explain what the policy means, to you specifically. While this indicates a legitimate problem - that people for whom English is a second language might need translations of this policy to their native tongue - for logistical reasons this specific discussion about forming the policy pretty much has to transpire in English. I confess that I'm really starting to lose my patience with you on this issue... there's still legitimate, productive discussion to be had regarding the policy, but I think you're prohibiting it rather than facilitating it.

Allow me to be concrete, then: Removing a single mix from the torrents, mirrors, forums, last.fm, etc. is a pain in the ass currently. If we had a large number of removals, it'd be even moreso. Even if we have a small number, it's enough to stop us from doing things that we'd otherwise like to do, like physical media distribution, because we don't know when and where the removals would occur. No one's articulated persuasive reasons for removal. People HAVE said that they shouldn't need any reason whatsoever, but let me be concrete: I don't accept that. Dhsu's suggested we blatantly say that we won't remove mixes, but I don't like ruling out extremely rare situations. Perhaps the wording should simply indicate the extremely unlikely nature that mixes will be removed... Hopefully that's sufficiently concrete and you won't feel the need to take excerpts of it out of context and juxtapose them ala Fox News...

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.